set_world_background

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: hdri_path overrides color, color format (comma-separated r,g,b in 0..1), and strength default. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid hdri_path) or side effects, which would push it to 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear list of parameters. No redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with few parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not mention default behavior when neither parameter is given (though schema provides defaults) or whether changes are immediate. This leaves minor gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning: color format (comma-separated r,g,b 0..1), strength default, and that hdri_path overrides color. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though could be more precise (e.g., inclusive range).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Set the scene world background') and resource (world background), and specifies two distinct modes (solid colour or HDRI map). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like lighting or other rendering tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The purpose is clear but the agent receives no help in deciding between this tool and others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.